List or apply a code action

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that applying an action saves the file, adding a concrete behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies the list vs. apply distinction, which is helpful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences front-load the main purpose (list or apply code actions) and immediately follow with the optional apply_index behavior and the common use case. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core functionality, the file-saving side effect, and the intended use case. It does not detail return values, but with no output schema and a straightforward list operation, the provided info is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents apply_index semantics ('Index from a previous list call; omit to only list'). The description reinforces this but adds little new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists LSP code actions at a position and can apply one by passing apply_index. It uses specific verbs (list/apply) and names the resource (LSP code actions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nvim_diagnostics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: 'Use this to apply quick fixes for diagnostics.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.